根據後期聖徒運動的經典《摩門經》的說法,這部經典宣稱是由在公元前600年到公元421年之間在西半球的先知以改良埃及文[1]寫在金頁片[2]上。後期聖徒運動的創始者 Joseph Smith, Jr.(小斯密約瑟)在1830年出版了這個宣稱是由頁片上面翻譯而來的《摩門經》。然而大多數語言學者們的學術研究並不支持摩門教徒所相信的改良埃及文的存在性[3]。
對於改良埃及文的長相,現在只有兩個樣本可供參考。其中稱為安東抄本或「Caractors 文件」[8]的這一份是比較有名的。在1887年,David Whitmer(大衛·惠特茂)宣稱他有一張由金頁片上抄下來的文字,是 Martin Harris(馬丁·哈里斯)曾經拿給哥倫比亞學院(即為美國紐約現在哥倫比亞大學的哥倫比亞學院)的語言和古典文學教授 Charles Anthon(查理士·安東)看過[9]。
對於「改良埃及文」的摩門教研究無可避免的只能在對翻譯出的文本中語言學上蛛絲馬跡以及安東抄本上僅存的這7行文字做研究[18]。 有些摩門教徒已經嘗試著去解開安東抄本,但是根據摩門教護教家 John Gee 的評論:『主體並沒有大到能夠可以解譯的地步』[19]。儘管如此,一些耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(LDS)的學者和一位重組後的耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(RLDS)的學者曾嘗試著去破解,這些學者包括 Ariel L. Crowley,[20]、Blair Bryant (RLDS)[21] 和 Stan and Polly Johnson[22]。他們提出假說認為這些字母與那些其他的語言文字相似[23],包括希伯來文[24]、Gregg shorthand(一種英語速記法)[25]、埃及通俗體[26]、埃及聖書體(即一般所謂埃及象形文)[27]、科普特文[28]、和瑪雅文明及奧爾梅克文明的文字[29]。但是,如果要以這些文字去辨識在安東抄本上的字母的話,這些字母常常得要上下顛倒或旋轉90度。
一般標準的語言參考書目如 Peter T. Daniels 和 William Bright 所編輯的《The World's Writing Systems(世界上的書寫系統)》(美國紐約,牛津大學出版社,1999年)(共990頁)、David Crystal 所著《The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language(劍橋語言百科)》(劍橋大學出版社,1997年)和 Roger D. Woodard 所編《The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages(劍橋世界古語言百科)》(劍橋大學出版社,2004年)(共1162頁)都沒有提及任何有關「改良埃及文」。「改良埃及文」在 Andrew Robinson 所著的《Lost Languages: The Enigma of the World's Undeciphered Scripts(失落的語言:世界尚未解開文字之謎)》(美國紐約,McGraw Hill,2002年)。但是有在 Stephen Williams 《Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory》 (美國費城,賓夕法尼亞大學出版社,1991年)
摩門語 9:33。一些摩門教的學者解釋這是說李海那群離開耶路撒冷的人使用的是埃及文,而後來或由於不再和其他文明有交流而語言逐漸地演變進而成為一種改變過的或改良過的埃及文。見 William J. Hamblin 所著 《Reformed Egyptian(改良埃及文)》 (頁面存檔備份,存於網際網路檔案館)中所言:『In fact, the word reformed is used in the Book of Mormon in this context as an adjective, meaning "altered, modified, or changed." This is made clear by Mormon, who tells us that "the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, [were] handed down and altered by us" and that "none other people knoweth our language" (Mormon 9:32, 34)(事實上,「Reformed」這個詞在《摩門經》本文中是一個形容詞,有「altered(變更)」、「modified(修改)」或「changed(改變)」之意。摩門已經清楚說明,他說:『用那種在我們之中被稱為改良埃及文的字母寫下了這部記錄,這種文字是流傳下來,再由我們根據了我們的語言習慣而加以變更的。』,並說:『沒有別的民族知道我們的文字』(《摩門經》摩門語9章32和34節))』。其他摩門教學者則專注意在幾個從埃及文演進而出的語言在幾個世紀內的變化,進而推論「改良埃及文」可能是一種以類似埃及文字母的書寫形式用來寫非埃及文的語言,例如聖書體(即一般所言埃及象形文字),一種在公元前1世紀即有千年歷史的象形字簡寫而成的,或早期的通俗體,一種從聖書體轉化而出,約在《摩門經》所宣稱之先知教長李海離開耶路撒冷到美洲的時間之後再晚上50年後才開始在北埃及開始使用的書寫形式。見 William J. Hamblin 所著Egyptian(改良埃及文)》[永久失效連結]。然而一位名為 Richard Packham 的語言學者(先前也是摩門教信徒)則反駁說希伯來文書寫所用空間比聖書體要少上許多,見Packham 的網頁 (頁面存檔備份,存於網際網路檔案館)。其他評論家則認為斯密約瑟選擇「改良埃及文」是因為比「埃及文」更「安全」,既然新世界的希伯來文也隨著時間而演變,這更保證了沒有任何語言學家可以質疑這種語言。在 Kyle J. Gerkin 所寫的《Three Strikes, You're Out! The Quick and Dirty Case Against Mormonism(三振,出局!針對摩門教快速又骯髒的案例)》中他論到斯密約瑟以「改良埃及文」作為摩門經原文的原因是因為許多19世紀的學者通曉希伯來文,但是1830年沒有人會讀埃及象形文字:『Joseph's choice of 'reformed Egyptian' was a calculated move. At the time, Egyptian was generally believed to be indecipherable, as the grammar worked out from the Rosetta Stone would not be published until 1837.(斯密約瑟會選用「改良埃及文」是算計過的。當時,埃及文一般被認為是無法被解讀的,從羅塞塔石碑上找出來的文法直到1837年才出版)』
斯密約瑟的連襟 Michael Morse 說他曾有幾次看著斯密約瑟翻譯,並說他的『翻譯的過程是斯密約瑟將先見寶石放在帽子裡,然後將他的臉埋入帽子蓋著整個臉(原文:「mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face.」)』,見《Michael Morse interview with William W. Blair(William W. Blair 訪談 Michael Morse)》,1879年5月8日,收錄於《Early Mormon Document(早期摩門教文件)》卷4第343頁。Morse 驚訝於斯密約瑟口述的能力,並稱之為「a strange piece of work(一份奇怪的作品)」。惠特茂大衛說:『the plates were not before Joseph while he translated, but seem to have been removed by the custodian angel(當斯密約瑟翻譯的時候,頁片不在他面前,但好像已經被守護天使拿走了)』,見《David Whitmer Interview with the Chicago Times(芝加哥時報訪談惠特茂大衛)》,1875年8月,收錄於《Early Mormon Document(早期摩門教文件)》卷5第21頁。惠特茂大衛也說:『after affixing the magical spectacles to his eyes, Smith would take the plates and translate the characters one at a time. The graven characters would appear in succession to the seer, and directly under the characer, when viewed through the glasses, would be the translation in English.(在眼睛戴上神奇的鏡片後,斯密約瑟會拿起頁片然後一次翻譯一個字母。刻在上面的字母會一個一個依次顯現,然後在每個字母下面,透過眼鏡,會看到英文翻譯)』,見《Chicago Tribune(芝加哥論壇報)》1885年12月15日,收錄於《Early Mormon Document(早期摩門教文件)》卷5第124頁。Isaac Hale 說當斯密約瑟翻譯的時候,頁片是「被藏在林子裡」。Hale 說哈里斯馬丁要求斯密約瑟給他一個「更大的眼見證明」,斯密約瑟告訴哈里斯馬丁『go into the woods where the Book of Plates was, and that after he came back, Harris should follow his track in the snow, and find the Book, and examine it for himself. Harris informed me afterwards, that he followed Smith's direction, and could not find the Plates, and was still dissatisfied.(到林子裡那頁片書的地方,在他回來以後,哈里斯馬丁要跟著他在雪地裡的腳蹤去,然後去找那本書,自己檢視一番。哈里斯馬丁之後告訴我,說他跟著斯密約瑟的方向去,卻沒有找到頁片,仍然不滿意)』,見《Mormonism(摩門主義)》,刊於《Susquehanna Register and Northern Pennsylvanian》第9號第1頁1834年5月1日,收錄於《Early Mormon Document(早期摩門教文件)》卷4第286-287頁。『No primary witness reported that Joseph used [the plates] in any way.(沒有任何第一級證人說斯密約瑟用任何方式使用頁片)』,見 Grant H. Palmer 所著《An Insider's View of Mormon Origins(一個內部人對摩門教創始的觀點)》,美國鹽湖城 Signature 書屋,2002年,第2-5頁。
見《Joseph Smith Interview with Peter Bauder(Peter Bauder 訪談斯密約瑟)》,1830年10月,收錄於《Early Mormon Document(早期摩門教文件)》卷1第17頁、見《Joseph Smith Interview with Leman Copley(Leman Copley訪談斯密約瑟)》,1831年,收錄於《Early Mormon Document(早期摩門教文件)》卷1第24-25頁。
整個說法是:『I went to the city of New York and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof to Professor Anthony (sic), a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments;-Professor Anthony (sic) stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldeac, Assyriac, and Arabac [Arabic], and he said that they were true characters. He gave me a certificate certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct.(我到紐約市去,把曾被翻譯過的文字及其譯文一起交給一個因其在文學上的學識而出名的紳士,安東查理士教授。安東教授指稱譯文是正確的,比他從前看到的任何譯自埃及文的譯文都更正確。然後我又把那些還沒有翻譯的給他看,他說那是埃及文,迦勒底文,亞述文,和阿拉伯文;他並且說那是真正的文字。他寫一張證明書給我,向拋邁拉的人們證明我拿給他看的那些文字是真正的文字,並且其中那些已被翻譯的譯文也是正確的。)』,哈里斯馬丁所著,刊於摩門教官方報紙《時代與季節》卷3第773頁
見《Charles Anthon 寫給 E. D. Howe的信》,1834年2月17日,內文『The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics' is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted farmer, called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decypher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. [...] On hearing this odd story [of the provenance of Smith's plates], I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl.(關於我曾鑒定摩門會碑版銘文為「改良的埃及象形文字」之說,完全出於虛構。幾年以前,一位坦率而外表純樸的農人,帶著原居本市而現已去世的米契爾博士所寫的便條來覆我,請我如果可能的話,代為譯解這位農人將要交給我的一份文件,米契爾博士承認他對之無法了解。在帶著懷疑的眼光加以審查之,我很快就得到了結論:這完全是在搗鬼,或許是一個騙局。……在聽了這個奇怪的故事以後,我改變了對這份文件的看法,不再認為它是一個愚弄知識份子的騙局,而認定它是一個想詐騙這個農人金錢的圈套。我告訴了他我的懷疑,並且警告他防範騙徒。他要求我寫一份書面的意見,我當然婉詞拒絕,而他則帶著那些紙離去。事實上這份文件純然是胡亂塗鴉)』(英文) (頁面存檔備份,存於網際網路檔案館)(中文) (頁面存檔備份,存於網際網路檔案館)。
在1814年,英國人 Thomas Young 結束埃及文通俗體的翻譯,而才準備要開始挑戰翻譯埃及象形文字(聖書體)字母。從1822年到1824年,Jean-François Champollion(約翰-法蘭西·錢波黎昂)大大地發展了這個工作。他也通常被認為是第一個解譯羅塞塔石碑的人。直到1858年,美國賓夕法尼亞大學的 Philomathean 學會才出版了第一個羅塞塔石碑碑文的完整英文翻譯。見 Allen, Don Cameron 所著《The Predecessors of Champollion(錢波黎昂的先行者們)》刊於《Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society》卷144第5號刊第527-547頁,1960年。也見 Lesley Adkins 與 Roy Adkins 合著《The Keys of Egypt: The Obsession to Decipher Egyptian Hieroglyphs》,美國紐約 HarperCollins Publishers ,2000年硬皮版 ISBN 0-06-019439-1、2001年軟皮版 ISBN 0-00-653145-8。
查理士·安東寫給 E. D. Howe,1834年2月17日,收錄在《Early Mormon Documents(早期摩門教文件)》卷4第380頁。此處原文為:『It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets, Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but 'Egyptian Hieroglyphics.'』
Blair Bryant 解釋說:『Find a copy of that forgery and you can easily compare and see how Hofmann did it. Just turn a copy of the Caractors Transcript 90 degrees clockwise. Now compare the right-hand most column (line A) with Hofmann's left-hand most column. Reorient the individual characters as in the original (rotate each individual character 90 degrees counterclockwise) and you can identify every character.... Then Hofmann added a couple of additional squiggles to the bottom. Then, go to the line B and compare it from top to bottom with Hofmann's second column and so on. He copied it character-by-character with a few changes in flourishes or combinations of elements. He did that for the first four lines. In his fifth column he took elements in sequence from line E at the top and segments of other lines for the circular figure at the bottom. In a letter written several years after the Martin Harris meeting (1834, if memory serves), Professor Anthon described the document characters as being like mixtures of ancient alphabets jumbled and that there was a circular figure similar to an Aztec calendar at the bottom. It seems apparent that Hofmann rearranged the pattern to agree with Professor Anthon's description.(找一份那個偽造品的複製本你可以很輕易地比對看出 Hofmann 是怎麼做的。把安東抄本順時針轉90度。現在拿最右邊那一行(甲行)比對 Hofmann 的最左邊一行,然後將每個字母重新轉回來跟原來的一樣(每個字母逆時針轉90度)然後你就可以辨識出每一個字母……然後 Hofmann 加了一些潦草的字在下面。然後,再到乙行並比較從上到下在 Hofmann 的第二行,之後如此。他一個一個字母地抄並改變一些花樣或合併結構。他對前四行這樣處理。在第五行他從戊行的上端拿字母,然後再拿其他行圓形的圖樣放在下邊。在與哈里斯馬丁相遇的數年後(1834年,如果沒記錯的話),安東教授描述字母文件像是混合著早期字母併在一起,並且有像阿茲特克文明日曆上的圓形圖案在下邊。看起來很明顯地安東重新排列了這些樣式來符合安東教授的描述。)』
在這本《Translating the Anthon Transcript (翻譯安東抄本)》(美國猶他州帕羅宛,Ivory Books,1999年),作者 Stan Johnson 和 Polly Johnson 議論安東抄本的內容是現今《摩門經》的以太書6章3-13節。但是另一方面 John Gee 說如果這份安東抄本是從哈里斯馬丁拿給安東教授的那一份,說這會比較可能是從當時他們正在翻譯的文本出來的,而當時正在翻譯的文本即後來所宣稱遺失的116頁,包含李海時期至班傑明王時期,因此不太可能是從以太書出來。見 John Gee 所著《Some Notes on the Anthon Transcript(關於安東抄本的一些註腳)》 (頁面存檔備份,存於網際網路檔案館)。